DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 7-8, 15-16 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Rusanovskyy et al. (US 20170332098 A1, hereinafter “Rusanovskyy”).
Regarding claim 1. Rusanovskyy discloses a method of video decoding (abstract), comprising:
receiving a coded video bitstream comprising coded information of a block (0071 and 0217; Figure 14);
extracting transform coefficients from the coded information (0165 and 0175; Figures 7A-7B and 8A-8B);
applying an inverse transform on the transform coefficients to generate scaled residual values (0175);
applying an inverse scaling operation on the scaled residual values based on one or more scaling values to generate restored residual values (Claims 11 and 13); and
reconstructing the block according to the restored residual values (0187 0190-0192 and 0212; Figures 10B, 11B and 12).
Regarding claim 2. Rusanovskyy discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more scaling values include a constant value (0181-0190; Figure 9A-9B and 10A-10B; wherein the scaling parameter is the scaling value).
Regarding claim 3. Rusanovskyy discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising at least one of:
deriving a scaling value based on a function (0145);
deriving a scaling value based on a relative position of a sample in the block;
deriving a scaling value based on a context adaptive function with the scaled residual values being input to the context adaptive function;
deriving a scaling value based on a content characteristic of the block;
deriving a scaling value based on a motion vector of the block;
deriving a scaling value based on a texture of the block; and/or
deriving a scaling value using a neural network that is pretrained.
Regarding claim 7. Rusanovskyy discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the applying the inverse scaling operation comprises:
determining a restored residual value corresponding to a scaled residual value according to a lookup table (LUT) (0212 and 0244; Figure 17; Claim 7).
Regarding claim 8. Rusanovskyy discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the applying the inverse scaling operation comprises at least one of:
applying the inverse scaling operation when a block size and/or a block shape satisfies a requirement; and/or
applying the inverse scaling operation when the block is coded with a specific prediction mode (0225-0227 and 0233-0236; Figures 14-15).
Regarding claims 15-16 and 19. The encoding method claims 15-16 and 19 are drawn to the reverse method of the encoding method of using the corresponding decoding method claimed in claims 1-3 and 7. Therefore encoding method claims 15-16 and 19 correspond to decoding method claims 1-3 and 7 and are rejected for same reasons of anticipation as used above.
Regarding claim 20. Claim 20 recites similar features as the limitation of claim 1, and is rejected for the same reasoning of anticipation as used to reject claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6, 9-14 and 17-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASMAMAW G TARKO whose telephone number is (571)272-7493. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-5PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Chris Kelley can be reached at (571) 272-7331. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ASMAMAW G TARKO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482
Prosecution Insights